Making everyone happy is impossible. Pissing them off is a piece of cake. I like cake.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Scientists hoist by their own petard

Now, as we all know, there is a pressing problem that we have—all this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is warming the planet and we are all going to fry unless we severely reduce our output of said gas.

Unfortunately, nearly all of the effective ways of generating the energy that makes our world go round emit CO2 to a large extent; but, so severe is the problem, our politicians have responded to the urging of the scientific experts and put in place a number of measures to make carbon emission—and thus energy generation—much more expensive.

Now, do remember that this is all climate scientists because, of course, there is a "consensus" on the climate change topic. And almost all other scientists have urged us to listen to the climate scientists because they know what they are talking about and we laymen—even those who have a rather more specialist knowledge of statistical analysis or computer model programming—have no idea at all.

So, basically, we can say that the vast majority of the world's scientists back urgent action on carbon emissions: energy must be made much more expensive. Oh, wait, we didn't mean for us!

World-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions, scientists claim.

Some facilities must find hundreds of thousands of pounds to settle green tax bills, putting jobs and research at risk.

OK, no, really, I'm sorry. I haven't laughed that much since Chris Huhne admitted that he drove a car.

Anyway, so, what are these scientists going to do? Could it be that they are going to cough up gladly, pointing out that this is precisely the outcome that they wanted? Ah, no.

The unexpected impact of the government's carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme is so severe that scientists and research funders have lobbied ministers for an exemption to reduce the bills.

No, absolutely not.

Alright, I admit that a good deal of the satisfaction of the above is based purely on spite: you bastards (as in the scientific community) insisted that we take action on climate change—and you got it. I don't see why everyone but you should suffer.

Yes, it might seem counter-intuitive that government-funded initiatives should have to pay government taxes (in the same way that it might seem odd that government-funded jobs need to pay taxes) but there are, as Timmy points out, a couple of valid reasons (i.e. ones not based on spite) why scientists should not be exempt.

It would be a subsidy. And we want subsidies to be out in the open. We want to be able to add up what whatever rule or regulation, tax or charge, actually costs us. So we don’t want any hidden subsidies at all. This applies to everything: council house rents should be full market rents, even if that means everyone gets housing benefit. We can then look at the benefit bill and see how much housing the poor costs us. Trains and farmers should pay full whack on fuel duty, even if that means we then have to send them a cheque to compensate. We want to be able to see, exactly, what their subsidy is.

We absolutely do not want things run by politicians and bureaucrats to be free of the rules politicians and bureuacrats impose upon the rest of us. It’s our only hope of reducing the complexities, that they have to struggle with their impositions as we do. Note the screams from MPs as their expenses are doled out in the same manner the dole is doled out. Quite bloody right too.

But it is very entertaining, nonetheless, to listen to the various sob stories highlitedby the Grauniad article...

Among the worst hit is the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, a facility for research into almost limitless carbon-free energy. The lab faces an estimated £400,000 payment next year, raising the spectre of job losses and operational cuts. "Considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill," a senior scientist at the lab said. "We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that."

And that is different from other businesses how, exactly?

Oh, by the way, you're flogging a dead horse: you may have the largest fusion reactor in Europe but if it actually generated, you know, any electricity then you could offset the costs, eh? But it doesn't.

Another Oxfordshire laboratory, the Diamond synchrotron light source, expects a £300,000 bill under the CRC. A spokesman said the lab hoped to offset the bill by investing in better climate control and motion-sensitive lighting.

Well, that's what the government is telling private businesses to do—why should it not apply to these scientist types?

At the Daresbury laboratory in Cheshire, the CRC bill will worsen financial woes that have forced managers to draft redundancy packages and consider cutting back on equipment. "Science is already struggling here and now we are being charged an additional premium to go about our everyday business while working to address the government's own stated grand challenges in science for the 21st century.," said Lee Jones, an accelerator physicist at the laboratory.

Well, we are all doing that, Lee: after all, some of us have to try to "address the government's own stated grand challenges" for GDP growth over the next five years—also in the face of rising costs and taxes.

So, with all due respect, o science types, you can take your exemption and stuff it up your pontificating arseholes.

Just like they don't t really want smokers to quit, governments don't really want climate change to be solved. Assuming that there is no collapse before this, imagine a future where the whole world is covered in solar panels and wind farms, and the majority of scientists say that the problem is over. Will carbon taxes be repealed?

Have you ever considered doing a piece about "what's in a name?" when it comes to politics? There are so many aptly-named people in politics it is amusing. From obvious ones like Hague. To less obvious ones like David Cameron (of David and Goliath fame, 2nd son of Israel, while a Cameron ulcer is defined as one which 'bleeds slowly and silently'.

Anthony Blair? Anthony grandchild of Caesar and transformer of Rome from Republic to Empire. While the "Blair House" is historically where guests at the invitation of the US President would be housed.

Green energy, makes me laugh. I think about one windmill, then two, then ten, then a hundred, then a thousand. With each windmill I see the amount of wind blowing through decreasing in strength - after all, the wind gets turned into rotary turbine energy, the potential for the wind beyond the first windmill will have decreased as it moves on to the next. At some point it's a diminishing return, you can only get so much energy out of the windmills and the last ones further down the line will simply sit there, not enough wind left to make them spin. It will create a lot of tax subsidies and credits for the investors though, to offset taxes they make in ways nothing to do with green energy schemes. It's all a load of unintended consequences, nothing thought out beyond the distance of a computer screen into the real world.

Quote:I so severe is the problem, our politicians have responded to the urging of the scientific experts and put in place a number of measures to make carbon emission—and thus energy generation—much more expensive.

This whole excercise was initiated by the UK government as a means of raising tax, using the backing of science, so there would be no gainsaying it. Environmentalists and meterologists were then funded, rather then physicists, who then metamorphosed to climate "scientists", took the funding, provided the desired results to a grateful government. When that excercise was complete, and the governments had what they wanted, they quite rightly in their view, declared that the science/debate was over. But there never was a proper and open scientific debate.

The whole thing was a fraud from beginning to end. Why end? Because governments dont want a post-mortem on the debate that is now dead. They have what they want anyway, green taxes, carbon taxes, wind taxes, electricity taxes, and raided taxes on everything else because of the high fuel taxes. They have the money to swan around the world and excercise patronage and power via our money.

The only way to stop this open season on the plunder of the people's purse is by revolution. The revolution can be peaceful or violent - that will depend on the thieving swine.